Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T00:12:59.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Scholars' Views on Reburial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clement W. Meighan
Clement W. Meighan*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

[T]here is something inherently distasteful and unseemly in secreting either the fruits or seeds of scientific endeavors.

Judge Bruce S. Jenkins (quoted in Palca 1991:884)

Destruction of archaeological collections through the demands for reburial presents a serious conflict between religion and science. Archaeologists should not deal with these matters by "compromise" alone, but must sustain their rights and duties as scholars.

Resumen

Resumen

La destrucción de colecciones arqueológicas debido a las demandas de reentierro presenta un grave conflicto entre religión y ciencia. Los arqueólogos no deberían tratar estos temas solo en términos de "compromiso," sino que deben mantener sus derechos y obligaciones como investigadores.

Type
Forum
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 704 - 710
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Reference Cited

Bahn, P. G. 1989 Burying the Hatchet. Nature 342: 123.Google Scholar
Del Bene, T. A. 1990 Take the Moral Ground: An Essay on the “Reburial” Issue. West Virginia Archeologist 42(2): 11–19.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L., and Kintigh, K. 1990 Ethics and the Reburial Controversy. American Antiquity 55: 585–591.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W. 1984 Archaeology: Science or Sacrilege? In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, edited by Green, E. L., pp. 208–233. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Meighan, C. W. 1990 Bone Worship. West Virginia Archeologist 42(2): 40–43.Google Scholar
Neiburger, E. J. 1990 Profiting from Reburial. Nature 344: 297.Google Scholar
Palca, J. 1991 News and Comment. Science 253: 844.Google Scholar
Preston, D. J. 1989 Skeletons in Our Museums Closets. Harpers. February: 66–75.Google Scholar
Riverside County Superior Court 1990 California vs. David Van Horn and Robert Scott White, hearing transcript (available from Coyote Press, Box 3377, Salinas, CA 93912; $15. 07 postpaid).Google Scholar
Tonetti, A. C. 1990 Ghost Dancing in the Nineties: Research, Reburial and Resurrection Among the Dead in Ohio. West Virginia Archeologist 42(2): 20–22.Google Scholar
West Virginia Department of Transportation [WVDOT] 1991 Agreement: Cotiga Burial Mound, Mingo County. May 3, 1991 [A legal challenge to this agreement has been filed by the Council for West Virginia Archaeology, the United Cherokee Indian Tribe of West Virginia, and the West Virginia Archeological Society (case no. 91 -MISC-430, circuit court of Kanawha County, West Virginia). ]Google Scholar